Deep End's Paul Venezia wonders why more folks aren't using FreeBSD on the desktop. 'There used to be a saying -- at least I've said it many times -- that my workstations run Linux, my servers run FreeBSD. Sure, it's quicker to build a Linux box, do a "yum install x y z" and toss it out into the wild as a fully functional server, but the extra time required to really get a FreeBSD box tuned will come back in spades through performance and stability metrics. You'll get more out of the hardware, be that virtual or physical, than you will on a generic Linux binary installation.'

The BSD license is also GPL-compatible but that's not the point. The Apache license is not GPL, the Artistic license is not GPL, the MIT/BSD is not GPL, the Python license is not GPL. The projects I mentioned are not GPL licensed and they're all successful projects.
GPL-compatible is not the same as being GPL. Using BSD/MIT/Apache/Artistic or any other "GPL-compatible" license does not mean your projects is GPL licensed.
OSS > GPL.

Django is BSD, ok, but who uses that?

Flaunting your ignorance, I see.

Projects that don't use the GPL hardly succeeds.

Except all the ones I listen and many more.

Just see Theo de Raadt whining because he doesn't get enough contributions in his BSD projects.

This is abuse, plain and simple, and Theo's relationship with his developers is abusive. I feel bad for anyone who has to engage him in real life, and fear something Reiser-like happening in the future. This controlling, manipulative attitude coupled with periodic violent outbursts indicates a deep-seated mental health issue that has gone unchecked for far too long. If you are an OpenBSD developer, watch your back!

I can keep going, but I'll stop now.

To me, the GPL is a better license, specially when it comes to Free Software. The reason is its strong-copyleft nature.

If I give you something, I want something back. And I don't want some greedy company to close what I made open in the first place. Plain and simple.

The word "trollaxor" didn't clue you in? It's about as accurate as Linux-Haters' blog.

To me, the GPL is a better license, specially when it comes to Free Software.

If I give you something, I want something back. And I don't want some greedy company to close what I made open in the first place. Plain and simple.

Good for you. We're not talking about what you personally like though. Your personal feelings regarding the GPL has no relevance to the discussion at hand.
There are many successfully OSS projects that do not use the GPL and your personal preference for the GPL does not change that fact.